PPPP Acknowledges the Improvement of Economy under Musharraf

On this blog we have collected a number of essays listing the economic achievements of the Musharraf government, arguing that none of the so-called ‘democratic’ regimes of Benazir and Nawaz, even when put together, come remotely close to what Musharraf accomplished for Pakistan’s economy within a decade’s time. These essays can be seen here:

There was a good reason to compile these essays. Opponents of Musharraf have been constantly claiming that Musharraf not only did nothing for Pakistan’s economy, but, in fact, harmed it immensely during his time. These Musharraf opponents belong primarily to the PPPP and PML-N parties and even now they can be seen making such allegations, both in newspapers as well as on various television programmes. Therefore, our aim was to demonstrate the utter falsity of this allegation and to expose these people as bald faced liars.

Finally, at least privately, the current PPPP regime has admitted this! In their ‘Letter of Intent’ to the IMF in a bid to secure a bail-out package of $7.6 billion, the PPPP government relied upon the economic successes and achievements of the Musharraf government as a major point to convince the IMF!

While publicly it criticizes former President Musharraf for the present economic mess, the government in its official documents has appreciated the economic policies of the previous regime that became a strong base for seeking loans from multilateral donors and friends of Pakistan.

So publicly, the government is lying.

Moving on:

The letter of intent (LoI), on the basis of which, Pakistan sought the much-needed $7.6 billion bailout package from the International Monitory Fund (IMF), has bit by bit appreciated the Musharraf policies since 2000.

During the past one decade (1999-2007), the LoI says Pakistan’s economy witnessed a major economic transformation from substantial increase in the volume of gross domestic product (GDP) to greater international trade.

The reason for the above:

An official source requesting not to be named said the economic wizards in the finance ministry are not politicians to make only speeches but they have to look into ground realities. ‘We reported to IMF whatever is factual and based on evidence,’ the official added.

In other words, they cannot afford to tell outright lies to the IMF, while the PPPP politicians can tell lies to the Pakistan public. The economists cannot continue with this tradition of deceit but must stick to the facts in their discussions with the IMF.

Former Finance Minister Dr Salman Shah told this scribe the government has made the 170 million people fool while telling them pack of lies in the past nine months about the economic policies of the Mushrraf regime.

The truth is:

The LoI said the country’s real GDP increased from $60 billion in 2000-01 to $170 billion in 2007-08 with per capital income rising from under $500 to over $1000. During the same period, the volume of international trade increased to nearly $60 billion from $20 billion.

For most of this period, real GDP grew at more than 7 per cent a year with relative price stability. The improved macroeconomic performance enabled Pakistan to re-enter the international capital markets in the mid-2000s. Buoyant output growth, low inflation, and the government’s social policies contributed to a reduction in poverty and an improvement in many social indicators.

Had Pakistan’s economy not grown under Musharraf:

…Pakistan would have to apply for other long term IMF financing facilities like poverty reduction, structural adjustments etc, Shah said adding government should tell truth to the nation if they have confidence.

‘The recruitment made so far for running the finances of this country is very depressing. This shows this government has neither commitment nor capabilities to take the country out of the current crisis,’ Dr Salman said.

The actual cause of the current downfall:

He said the government admitted in the LoI, the current crisis was because of price shocks, global financial turmoil and policy inaction during the political transition to the new government. He blamed the current government for blocking inward movement of $5 billion by suspending privatization of major transactions.

++++++++++++

What the above means is that the PPPP (and the PML-N) has been busy telling lies about the performance of the Musharraf government. Either under Musharraf the economy did well or it did poorly. Both scenarios could not have occurred simultaneously. Either the PPPP officials told blatant lies to the Pakistani public or they told blatant lies to the IMF in their “Letter of Intent.” What we know for sure, however, is that they have been telling lies to at least one of the sides. We will let the PPPP decide in which instance they were lying.

Understandably the ever so grotesque Ishaq Dar (see also this) is still in denial, remaining unrepentant, and insisting he was right when he infamously blurted out that the Pakistan treasury was “empty.”

Let us also bear in mind the immense harm the present ‘democratic’ government has caused to the Pakistani economy in a short span of time, an economy they privately admit was immensely strengthened by the Musharraf government:

I end this paper by quoting the relevant sections from the government’s own “Letter of Intent”:

++++++++

I. RECENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS

1. In the last decade, Pakistan’s economy witnessed a major economic transformation. The country’s real GDP increased from $60 billion in 2000/01 to $170 billion in 2007/08 (fiscal year starts July 1st), with per capita income rising from under $500 to over $1,000. During the same period, the volume of international trade increased from about $20 billion to nearly $60 billion. For most of this period, real GDP grew at more than 7 percent a year with relative price stability. The improved macroeconomic performance enabled Pakistan to re-enter the international capital markets in the mid-2000s. Large capital inflows financed the current account deficit and contributed to an increase in gross official reserves to $14.3 billion (3.8 months of imports) at end-June 2007. Buoyant output growth, low inflation, and the government’s social policies contributed to a reduction in poverty and an improvement in many social indicators.

2. This strong macroeconomic performance resulted from the implementation of a series of important structural reforms. In the early 2000s, with financial support from international financial institutions (IFIs), including the IMF, the World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank, the government expanded the role of markets in the economy, privatized a number of large state-owned enterprises, established market-based regulatory bodies, and took steps to reduce the cost of doing business in Pakistan.

Like this:

Related

Responses

Excellent sum up! Musharraf was and is the best leader Pakistan ever had after Quaid Azam. Unfortunately, we disrespected our own uniform – the PAK army uniform and kicked out the only honorable visionary leader we had.

I also acknowledge the improvement of economy under Musharraf UNTIL 2006 ONLY. Why did he fail politically? I think the collossal political mistake that he made was that he didn’t leave the office of army chief in Dec 2004, thereby losing majority support in Pakistan’s Parliament AND JUDICIARY. He might still think that it was extremely important to stay in uniform at that time, but he is wrong. Actually, he ‘re-defined’ himself at least in the eye of the public when made this decision. The rest of happenings are just domino effect.

++++++++++++++

[Moderator: I think it is unfair to blame Musharraf as if he deliberately did something to put a halt to Pakistan’s economic recovery after 2006. Let’s put things in context: besides the high oil prices which were responsible for something like 60% of Pakistan’s trade deficit, the infamous “lawyers movement” also emerged. The latter tarnished Pakistan’s image abroad. In addition to this, an increase in suicide bombings and terrorism scared away investors. But, economically, things were still manageable. Pakistan’s economy significantly nose-dived after the PPPP came to power. Do we all recall the irresponsible acts of Ishaq Darr? They were enough to drive away the remaining potential investors from Pakistan. So a lot was happening which was out of Musharraf’s control.

Also, when Musharraf retained the uniform in 2004, I do not think he “lost the majority.” Most people still backed him; or at the very least, were not much bothered by his uniform. Likewise, the Judiciary, our dearly beloved Iftikhar Chaudhry was ‘A OK’ with Musharraf. He was pleased with Musharraf up until the day he was temporarily removed on corruption charges. ]

By: Sarmad Tanwir on May 6, 2009 at 4:19 am

Have you ever considered that is only with Musharraf that we hear that he made mistakes ? Does it not make you wonder why nobody else seems to make a mistake ? Only those who work will make mistakes and there are bound to be good policies and bad polcies. persuing a policy of privatisation may be a mistake for instance, but trying to get a bill through parliament, getting yourself declared amin ul momineen and banning and excusing interest payments because they are unislamic, with the clear intent to grab power and find an excuse not to pay back dues on the massive loans one took – ARE NOT MISTAKES. This is thuggery of the highest order. And that is what has been driving most politicians.

Reflect on that, this is another major change in PK politics this man brought, the abilty say, ‘yes I was wrong’.

Econimically we down straight with the start of the lawyers movement, it has no relationship with uniforms.

SA

By: ahmda shahzad on May 7, 2009 at 9:39 pm

To the moderator:-

When I said that he lost majority in the Parliament, I am stating a plain fact. The 17th amendment could be passed because Musharraf had mustered up a 2-3rd majority to support him by whatever means. But, when he didn’t leave the office of the army chief as promised, he suddenly lost the support of the MMA. He still got 51% votes when he was re-elected. But how do you compare that with a two-third majority support?
The second fact that I stated was that he lost the support of the judiciary. Even if we accept that the reference against Mr Iftikhar Chaudry was not malafide, the people of Pakistan rallied behind the lawyer’s movement because they had lost their faith in Musharraf, meaning that they no longer believed in what he said especially about being a proponent of democracy. It is interesting to note that most of the Musharraf supporters are blind democracy haters or at least committed haters of Pakistani politicians. Musharraf on the other hand was a realist. He was better than the generals that engineered his coup and is also better than his supporters.

+++++++++

[Moderator: Thank you for your reply. Briefly, if Musharraf won 51% of the votes, then I guess that means the majority still backed him even if the departure of the MMA decreased his support base. So it does not matter if the MMA didn’t support him.

As for the Judiciary, 60 judges did not approve of the emergency. The vast majority approved it. Thus, the 60 judges represented a very small segment of the Judiciary.

Did the “people of Pakistan” really “rallied” behind the so-called lawyer’s movement? Such a statement is a hard generalization. I know many people within Pakistan who hated the lawyer’s movement. Are we to declare such people “non-Pakistanis” because they did not rally behind the lawyer’s movement even though they were born in Pakistan to Pakistani parents? So let us be more nuanced in the statements we make. There are many Pakistanis who supported the lawyer’s movement and there are also many Pakistanis who did not support this movement. If we are to go by the election results, millions of Pakistanis voted in support of political parties which had been backing Musharraf, the PML-Q and MQM. Presumably, their millions of supporters did not support the lawyer’s movement. Moreover, at no time did we see the type of huge and sustained public processions in support of the lawyers which would usually paralyze the functioning of a government.

Your comment that “most” Musharraf supporters are “blind democracy haters” needs to be substantiated. This may well be the case, but thus far no argument/evidence has been presented to demonstrate the accuracy of this assertion. I for one do not personally dislike democracy nor to do hate all Pakistani politicians. Though I agree with your last comments :)]

By: Sarmad Tanwir on May 15, 2009 at 3:45 pm

To moderator again:-

I agree with the first paragraph you wrote in reply to my original comment

By: Sarmad Tanwir on May 15, 2009 at 3:49 pm

Interesting comments Mr. Tanwir> Consider this,For the first time in Pakistan’s history, a change of government took place through the ballot box. Un precedented perhaps, a so called dictator stepped down as a result. Democracy haters ?

As for your point on the politicins, not much needs to be said really for the BULK of them.

Musharaf did his job to the best his abilty and honestly, much more than you can say of our politicians.

Your last line gives away a lot. We speak here with conviction and logic, we dont go around burning properties causing mayhem. I think you misjudge, we are not blind suporters.

SA

By: Shahzad Ahmad on May 15, 2009 at 8:30 pm

In previous comments,two questions were raised:
1)Why Musharraf did not step down in 2004
2)Privatisation
It may be possible that the person in line to become COAS was not suitable for the job.
At the time of Steel Mill privatisation,the matter was boobooed by the Govt in the light of Mittal factor.
The only mistake he made was not getting 3rd Nov. actions,regularised by the parliament.